Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Lomborg says you can eliminate all your descendants CO2 emissions (1350 tonnes) for $23,400, so $17.33/tonne. Gosh that's not much. Why don't we pay $17.33/tonne to eliminate all the world's 45 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted per year. That would be $785 billion/year. The World GDP is $80,000 billion/year so that is less than 1 percent. Is Lomborg telling us that global warming can be easily solved by spending less than one percent of GDP? What are we waiting for? Or perhaps $17.33 is a meaningless number with respect to the real cost of eliminating CO2 emissions. Oil company revenues were over $5,000 billion for example.

It's all about the expected impact of your marginal action. I'm happy to bite the bullet and say that, simplistically at least, sure, maybe our ancestors caused more harm than people who fly a lot or eat animal products today. But our hunter-gatherer ancestors couldn't fathom such a future, or such an impact. Today, we can predict the impact of having a child, and we have a duty to do so.

What ones' child might do in 2-3 decades might be their choice, but that doesn't erase the fact that you can predict the impact of having a child. If the act of having a child is expected to increase global emissions by 20 tonnes of CO2e per year on average (to use an arbitrary value), it doesn't matter that your kid will have a choice to emit more or less. You know what the expected value is, so by having a child, that is your expected impact.

Interesting economic analysis, but the point about the joy in having children is far more important to a meaningful life. Parents having only 2 children will not increase the population and most of the developed world are having less than 2 children per family on average. It is difficult to believe this advice is taken seriously. Those giving this advice should lead by example.

Trying to make any sort of case that 7, edging on 8, billion hungry and endlessly consuming large living beings are harmless to the planet is truly a lost cause. There is no argument that actually holds water in favor of the notion that we humans can keep on keeping on, expanding our numbers forever.

To be clear, every one of the articles cited in this paragraph is a summary of or based on scientific reports about the effects of reproduction on the climate. These articles are not official positions of the publications, or editorial statements to be construed as representative of the consensus of the publication itself. It is not clear why the writer did not cite the science cited in those articles directly and instead chose to cite the reporting of that science.

It greatly depends who is procreating. The average republican wants to drive a 5 litre Camaro, switch back to coal and work inside a smokestack. It would be better for the planet if Republicans refrained from breeding.